"Every candidate for promotion or tenure review shall undergo peer review." (WSU PPM8-11:C)

I.     Assumptions:

1. The library's peer review process shall adhere to the intent and general guidelines specified in the University's PPM 8-11:C.
2. The purpose of the peer review is to facilitate the evaluation process primarily through evidence gathering.
3. The professional file, supplemented by additional relevant information, and observation of teaching and reference service, forms the basis for peer review. Reviewers shall interpret this information in terms of library expectations.
4. Where applicable, standardized forms will be developed and used to document peer review.
5. The process will be clearly defined and well-understood by all library faculty.
6. Peer review will be perceived as a means of helping faculty to improve and enhance their performance.
7. The process will not place an undue burden or stress on the reviewers or the faculty member.

II.     Categories to be considered in the peer review process:

1.     Librarianship

a.     Collection Management (including faculty liaison activities, subject specific instruction, and cataloging)

b.     Formal Instruction

c.     Reference Service

2.     Scholarship

3.     Professional Service

III.     Timeframe:

1.     While library faculty may request peer review during any academic year, peer review is required in the years in which s/he is formally evaluated:

a.     Fourth Year Review

b.     Promotion Review

c.     Tenure Review

2.     Peer reviewers will be selected by no later than February 15th during the academic year prior to the review. Reviewers will serve for one year.

3.     Faculty being considered for tenure or promotion have until February 15th to complete their professional file for review by the college Ranking and Tenure Review Committee. However, a "working" file must be ready for review by peer reviewers prior to the beginning of the peer review process.

4.     To accommodate the University's time-frame for tenure and promotion review, peer review must be completed by no later than January 30th.

IV.     Composition and Selection of the Peer Review Committee

1. All library faculty are eligible to serve as peer reviewers, excluding the University Librarian and any others who have separate, evaluative responsibility for the individual being reviewed.
2. The Peer Review Committee shall consist of a minimum of three and a maximum of five people, mutually agreed upon by the faculty member and the University Librarian, and who are familiar with the program.
3. Three reviewers will be selected from among the library faculty. At the discretion of the faculty member and the University Librarian up to two, mutually agreed upon, additional reviewers may be selected from outside the library.

V.     Procedures

1. The University Librarian will meet with the faculty member to select peer reviewers. The UL will then contact the mutually agreed upon individuals to invite them to serve on the Peer Review Committee.
2. The University Librarian will meet with peer reviewers to select a chair, discuss the peer review process, and determine the category(ies) for which each reviewer will take primary responsibility.
3. Reviewers will meet with the faculty member to establish a method and time table for completing the review, to identify any supplementary information they wish to examine that is not available in the faculty member's professional file, and to select the individuals whom they may wish to contact. This time table will be shared with the University Librarian.
4. Throughout the peer review process, the faculty member is responsible for providing materials deemed necessary by the reviewers. While the information included in the professional file forms the basis for peer review, additional relevant information may be requested by the reviewers and should be provided by the faculty member in a timely manner.
5. Reviewers will review the information contained in the professional file and any supplementary information, observe instructional sessions and reference service, and solicit comments from mutually agreed upon individuals who have direct knowledge concerning the faculty member's performance.
6. Reviewers will use the appropriate forms to record their observations and comments.
7. Upon completion of their review, reviewers will meet with the faculty member to discuss the results of the review prior to completing their written report.
8. The written report will be a narrative summary of both the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate in each of the relevant categories considered by the reviewers, and may include specific suggestions for improvement. Careful consideration will be given to the goals of the individual and the library.
9. Signed copies of the reviewers' written report will be forwarded to the faculty member and the University Librarian. Should the faculty member wish to, s/he may place a written response in the file or may ask to appear before the college Ranking and Tenure Committee (PPM 8-11:C-4)
10. A copy of the signed written report will be placed in the faculty member's professional file prior to the faculty member's evaluation by the college Ranking and Tenure Committee.
11. The results of the peer review are to be evaluated by the college Ranking and Tenure Committee, which is charged with making a formal evaluation and forwarding its recommendation to the University Librarian. The formal evaluation made by the University Librarian is then forwarded to the Provost. (PPM 811:C-1)

PEER REVIEW: COLLECTION MANAGEMENT

To review the collection management activities of library faculty, members of the peer review committee will conduct interviews with individuals and groups that have knowledge of the faculty member's collection management responsibilities. The following questions will be asked of each interviewee:

I.     Interviews with Departmental Representatives (maximum of two):

It is the intent of these questions to ascertain the bibliographer's progress in (a) needs assessment of the assigned subject areas; (b) selection of library resources; (c) promotion and facilitation of library services and resources; and (d) interpersonal communication.

1. Does the bibliographer advocate the information needs of faculty and students in your department? 
   Yes ___ No ___. If not, please elaborate.
2. Given budget constraints, does the bibliographer facilitate the selection of appropriate materials for the collection? 
   Yes ___ No ___. If not, please elaborate.
3. Does the bibliographer promote use of the collection by faculty and students in your department? 
   Yes ___ No ___. If not, please elaborate.
4. Does the bibliographer communicate with faculty and students in your department? 
   Yes__ No ___. If not, please elaborate.

II.     Interviews with Technical Services Focus Group:

The Technical Services Focus Group will consist of the Acquisitions & Serials Coordinator, Acquisitions Assistant, Government Documents Assistant, and the Cataloging Coordinator.

It is the intent of these questions to ascertain the bibliographer's progress in (a) responding to inquiries from technical services team members; (b) following technical services procedures; and (c) interpersonal communication.

1. Does the bibliographer follow established procedures? 
   Yes ___ No ___. If not, please elaborate.
2. Does the bibliographer respond to inquiries from technical services team members? 
   Yes ___ No ___. If not, please elaborate.
3. Does the bibliographer provide adequate explanations for the material they request? 
   Yes ___ No ___. If not, please elaborate.

III.     Interviews with other Collection Management Bibliographers (maximum of two):

It is the intent of these questions to ascertain the bibliographer's progress in (a) knowledge of the collection in their subject areas; (h) program effectiveness; and (c) interpersonal communication.

1. Does the bibliographer respond to inquiries and requests for assistance? 
   Yes ___ No ___. If not, please elaborate.
2. Does the bibliographer communicate the information needs of faculty and students in her/his subject areas? 
   Yes ___ No ___. If not, please elaborate.
3. Does the bibliographer work effectively as a member of the Collection Management Team? 
   Yes ___ No ___. If not, please elaborate.
4. Additional Comments:

PEER REVIEW: INSTRUCTION
TEACHING OBSERVATION REPORT FORM

Instructor:
Course:
Reviewer:
Date:

Purpose: To provide information that will (1) assist peer reviewers in assessing the quality of instruction provided and (2) help faculty to improve teaching and learning.

Instructions:

• For the purposes of peer review, two teaching sessions will be observed. Those sessions may be for credit class(es) or subject specific instructional sessions.
• Observations will be scheduled in advance as part of the peer review timetable.
• For the instructional session observed, please indicate whether or not the faculty member met the general teaching expectations listed below. Please explain any "No" answers and add comments that may assist in the peer review process or that would help the faculty member to improve teaching and learning.

1. Yes ___ No ___ Adequately defined objectives for the class presentation.
   Comment:
2. Yes ___ No ___  Effectively organized learning situations to meet the objectives of the class presentation.
   Comment:
3. Yes ___ No ___  Used instructional methods encouraging student participation in the learning process.
   Comment:
4. Yes ___ No ___  Used class time effectively.
   Comment:
5. Yes ___ No ___  Demonstrated enthusiasm for the subject matter
   Comment:
6. Yes ___ No ___  Communicated clearly and effectively to the level of the students.
   Comment:
7. Yes ___ No ___  Explained important ideas simply and clearly.
   Comment:
8. Yes ___ No ___  Demonstrated command of subject matter.
   Comment:
9. Yes ___ No ___  Responded appropriately to student questions and comments.
   Comment:
10. Yes ___ No ___  Encouraged critical thinking and analysis.
    Comment:

 

 

PEER REVIEW: INSTRUCTION
TEACHING MATERIALS

Listed below are items concerned with teaching materials, categorized into three major areas. For each item, please indicate whether or not (Y/N) the materials meet the criteria as represented by each item. If the item is not applicable, please indicate NA.

Course Organization:

1. ___ The syllabus adequately outlines the sequence of topics to be covered.
2. ___ The stated course objectives are clear.
3. ___ The outline and sequence of topics are logical.
4. ___ The course integrates recent developments in the field.
5. ___ Time given to each of the major course topics is appropriate.
6. ___ The course is designed to meet the needs of university level students.
7. ___ The course objectives are congruent with the department curricula.

Readings, Projects, and Laboratory Assignments:

1. ___ Texts and/or supplemental readings are well-selected, up to date and appropriate for the level of the course.
2. ___ Students are given ample time to complete the assignments/take home exams.
3. ___ The amount of homework and assignments are appropriate.
4. ___ The written assignments and projects are carefully chosen to reflect course goals.
5. ___ A variety of assignments is available to meet student needs.
6. ___ Laboratory work is integrated into the course.
7. ___ Students are given the course requirements in writing at the beginning of the course.
8. ___ The assignments are intellectually challenging to the students.

Exams and Grading:

1. ___ The exam content is representative of the course content and objectives.
2. ___ The exam items are clear and well written.
3. ___ The standards used for grading are communicated in writing to the students.

Comments:

PEER REVIEW: REFERENCE SERVICE

Peer review of Reference Service will be scheduled in advance as part of the peer review timetable. Reviewers should be prepared to spend a minimum of two hours observing the faculty member's reference service. Observations should occur on at least two different days and/or time slots.

Where possible, reviewers should be prepared to politely refer any reference questions that are asked of them to individuals scheduled at the service desk, explaining that they are there as an observer only.

Should one of the situations listed below NOT occur, reviewers should write "not applicable' in the comments section. Reviewers will also fully explain all "no" answers in the comments section and are encouraged to expand on "yes" answers.

I.     Question Negotiation.

1. Skillfully interviews patrons.
   Yes ___ No ___. Comments:
   
2. Sources recommended are at the appropriate level.
   Yes ___ No ___. Comments:
   
3. Determines patron's ability to use the source to which they are referred.
   Yes ___ No ___. Comments:
   
4. Instruction provided when appropriate.
   Yes ___ No ___. Comments:
   
5. Identifies alternative approaches.
   Yes ___ No ___. Comments:
   
6. Regularly suggests alternative sources or services.
   Yes ___ No ___. Comments:
   
7. Answers appear to be accurate and appropriate to the needs of the patron.
   Yes ___ No ___. Comments:
   
8. Ascertains whether patron's needs were satisfied; if not, provided alternatives.
   Yes ___ No ___. Comments:

II.     Knowledge of Resources.

1. Understands, uses and can instruct patrons in the use of print and electronic resources.
   Yes ___No ___. Comments:
   
2. Consults with colleagues when appropriate.
   Yes ___ No ___. Comments:

III.     Service Orientation.

1. Is approachable.
   Yes ___ No___. Comments:
   
2. Acknowledges users who approach the Desk, or who are waiting for assistance.
   Yes ___ No ___. Comments:
   
3. Provides a level of service appropriate to demand.
   Yes ___ No ___. Comments:
   
4. Assistance is offered to those who appear to need assistance.
   Yes ___ No ___. Comments:
   
5. Responds to patron's in a positive manner.
   Yes ___ No ___. Comments:
   
6. Responses are non-judgmental.
   Yes ___ No ___. Comments:
   
7. Treats all patrons with courtesy and respect.
   Yes ___ No ___. Comments:
   

IV.     Additional Information or Comments:

PEER REVIEW: SCHOLARSHIP

Library faculty shall engage in scholarly activities and will provide evidence of their accomplishments in their professional file.

"It should not be assumed that listing several different possibilities in this category implies that an individual should address all or even several of them. An excellent job of publication could very well be sufficient for a (positive review) in this category. Likewise, a good job in each of several areas could result in a (positive review)." (University PPM 8-13:Note)

The scholarly activities category includes, but is not limited to, the following types of activities:

Publications ["Final determination of which items in this category are of primary importance, secondary importance and so forth will be left to the individual colleges with the exception that publication will be an item of primary importance in all colleges." (University PPM 8-13:C:Note)], i.e., books and/or publications in refereed regional, national, or international journals.

1. Formal, post-graduate education or work experience beyond the attainment of the terminal degree.
2. Presentations at regional, national, or international scholarly meetings.
3. Development of new areas of expertise which are of benefit to the candidate, the library, and the University.
4. Funded research and/or grants at the local, regional, national, or international level.
5. Organizing and presentation of regional and/or national workshops for one's peers.
6. Creative activities that impact the appropriate discipline on a regional and national level.
7. Other evidence that indicates that the candidate is recognized for her/his scholarly contribution on a regional, national or international level.

PEER REVIEW: PROFESSIONAL SERVICE

Library faculty shall engage in professional service and will provide evidence of such service in their professional file.

In submitting evidence of professional service, the emphasis should be on the quality of the service and not on the amount of the service. "No requirement is included or intended to the effect that an individual must address more than one item within this category. In particular, no special emphasis is placed on University committee work as opposed to other items listed. Heavy concentration in a single area might be (considered) the same as moderate concentration in several. Quality and quantity of effort and the results obtained are the standards of measure." (PPM 8-13:D)

Types of activities relating to professional service include, but are not limited to the following:

I.     Service to the University, the Profession, and the Community -

1. University and library committee work (including serving on the Faculty Senate).
2. Active participation in professional organizations and similar activities that enhance the reputation of the individual, the university, or the library.
3. Assumption of offices or administrative positions within professional organization.
4. Participation in projects relating to the operation of the library and/or university, including coordination of library teams and/or service areas.
5. Development of new courses and/or programs as well as significant modifications of existing courses or programs.
6. Development of technically oriented processes that significantly benefit the library and/or the library profession.
7. Consulting and/or participating in work experience that will benefit the library or the university.
8. Speech making in areas of professional expertise.
9. Professionally related community service.
10. Providing professional expertise to expand library awareness/service in the community.

II.     Service to the Library -

Library faculty shall participate in the development of quality library services and are expected to work cooperatively with colleagues within the library.

Instructions: Based on information available in the professional file, the faculty activity record (FAR), and the reviewer's knowledge and perceptions of the individual, respond to each of the following statements. Please explain any "no" answers.

1. Yes ___ No ___  Accepts assignments willingly and assumes an appropriate share of the professional activities associated with the functioning of the library.
   Comment:
   
2. Yes ___ No ___  Serves on and makes a positive contribution to library teams and committees.
   Comment:
   
3.  Yes ___ No ___ Participates in and/or provides training for library staff.
   Comment:
   
4. Yes ___ No ___  Shares expertise and knowledge with colleagues.
   Comment:
   
5. Yes ___ No ___  Maintains a professional and cooperative attitude in dealing with colleagues.
   Comment:
   
6. Yes ___ No ___  Treats colleagues with courtesy and respect.
   Comment:
   
7. Yes ___ No ___  Communicates effectively with colleagues, team leaders, and the university librarian.
   Comment:
   
8. Yes ___ No ___  Consistently demonstrates effective time management and organizational skills.
   Comment:
   
9. Yes ___ No ___  Keeps commitments and completes assignments in a timely manner.
   Comment:
   
10. Additional Comments:

PEER REVIEW: TIMETABLE

Faculty Member Being Reviewed:

Peer Review Committee Members:

I.     Pre-review Meeting Date:

II.     Observation of Reference Service (dates & times to be mutually agreed upon).

Date:

Observer:

Date:

Observer:

III.     Observation of Teaching Sessions (either formal class or subject specific sessions. Dates & times to be mutually agreed upon).

Date:

Observer:

Date:

Observer:

IV.     Collection Management -

1.     Interviews with academic faculty. Individuals to be interviewed will be mutually agreed upon by the faculty member and the peer review committee.

Interviewee:
Department:
Interviewer:
Date:

Interviewee:
Department:
Interviewer:
Date:

2.     Interview with Collection Management Focus Group.

Interviewer:
Date:

3.     Interview(s) with other bibliographers.

Interviewer:
Date:
Interviewer:
Date:

V.     Post-review Meeting -

1.     Must take place prior to January 30^th and before the Committee drafts its narrative summary.

Date:

VI.     Committee's Written Report-

1.     Must be submitted to the faculty member and the University Librarian by NO LATER THAN February 15th.